memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Military parlance
Talk:Collision alert Examples There are many more examples of a collision alert being given that can should added to this article. --Shran 18:35, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC) : , perhaps? ...but iirc, that was simply "brace for impact". --Alan del Beccio 23:51, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC) ::I vaguely recall the phrase "All hands, brace for impact." used numerous times by Picard and Janeway, before the movie. I would speculate such warnings were an early form of the collision alert, but after realizing their starships got into collisions way too often, Starfleet instituted a formal collision alert procedure. Would be nice to be able to list all instances of a "All hands..." collision warning being called, but is this too speculative/general for this article? - Intricated 21:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC) ::I'm not sure the recent additions by are entirely accurate, as I don't recall the saucer section crash into Veridian III being called a "collision alert" by name, hence my pna. - Intricated 18:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Move or deletion? The term "collision alert" has apparently never been used on canon Trek. I therefore suggest one of the following, um... suggestions. # We move this to something like Impact alert, since any so-called "collision alert" was generally a call for crew members to "brace for impact"; # We merge this with military parlance, stating references of "brace for impact"; or # We delete this page entirely as non-canon. What do we do? Have at it! --From Andoria with Love 08:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC) :In my opinion perhaps 'brace for impact' should be mentioned in military parlance, but I don't think that every instance of it needs to be listed, just like we don't need to list every instance a photon torpedo is detonated. 31dot 00:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC) :Decided to list a merge suggestion. 31dot 22:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC) :Changed to a pna listing. In my opinion 'brace for impact' could be listed on military parlance with some examples, or this page could be renamed 'brace for impact'. If it gets moved to military parlance this should be deleted. 31dot 01:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC) :I changed it back to a merge suggestion(as there has been no discussion).As the term 'Collision alert' is not canon, a merge should take place.--31dot 00:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Talk:Dismissed Relevance? There are MANY more instances of this term being used throughout Star Trek. Having said that... while this term is used heavily throughout the show, I'm not sure a page for the term here is relevant given our stance against dictionary terms. If it's kept, though, like I said... there are many, MANY more references out there. --From Andoria with Love 02:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC) : I know there are and I entered it due to its high use. I tried to avoid a dictionary definition, but still lend some definition to the article itself. It is my hope that this is one of those articles that can be used in an anylitical sense by providing a comprehensive (eventually) view in to the use of the word. When, where, and under what circumstances. :* I started the article based on the episode I happened to be watching, but I have been thinking about it for a while. It just happened that the episode included an onscreen definition. (Sure, not a dictionary one, but a colorful one regardless) :* -- Dracorat 02:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Vfd ;Dismissed Memory Alpha is not a dictionary, and this is essentially just a dictionary entry. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC) * No it's not (a dictionary) but some terms are a bit more rampant in their use and could use an entry to tie them together. It is an encyclopedia and as such, some words will have analytical weight to them. This, I believe, is one such article, similar to Logic. *:* Keep -- Dracorat 02:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC) **Logic has added meaning in Star Trek, and given its status with the Vulcans, it is more than just "a word that Captains use". --OuroborosCobra talk 02:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC) *: No worries, thats why we have a vote system. =) -- Dracorat 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC) *Yeah, I'm kinda split on this one, myself... on the one hand, it's a repetitive part of Trek with, as Dracorat pointed out at the talk page, an actual description of sorts; on the other, it is a dictionary entry. Anyway, neutral... for now, anyway. --From Andoria with Love 02:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC) *'Neutral' for me, leaning towards keep. If this article is extended and has more references added, then it could turn out to be something good, and there's no point in chopping it off before it has the chance to be filled out at all. After all, the quote is rather amusing, and Janeway does use it all the bloody time (or so it seems). I'd suggest giving it a week and if it's not filling out at all, then it should definitely be looked at again. -- Sulfur 03:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC) *'Comment': I'm intrigued of keeping this article since it is a distinguishing characteristic of Starfleet s (and certain personnel), but I wonder what this means for other oft-used phrases like Make it so, Engage, Do it, Computer (voice prompt), Aye, Captain, etc. Just have to be careful in setting any precedent. Also, if this is not kept, the quote would make a nice addition to the Kathryn Janeway article. - Intricated talk page 03:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC) :*'Don't forget Energize and, my personal favorite, You're damned right. :P (Having said that... anybody remember the "Beam me up, Scotty" article we deleted a little while back?) --From Andoria with Love 03:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC) ::*I don't, but found it in the archive. Unless the "dismissed" article can be expanded beyond "catchphrase" status, sounds like a delete is in order. - Intricated talk page 03:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC) *'Comment': Actually we don't have a "vote system" regarding pages to be deleted - rather a page where all contributors can form a consensus on a page, based on which an admin can act. The title of this page is a little misleading, but was taken from Wikipedia when this project was created. Wikipedia has since renamed its page to "Pages for deletion", and perhaps we should do the same. Anyway, if any of our policy pages explicitely states that we don't accept a specific type of article (as in "We're not a dictionary"), and some page is exactly that, it should go, or the policy be rephrased. In any case, Vfd should not be a place to circumvent policies... -- Cid Highwind 08:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC) *I checked transcripts/scripts and "Dimissed" is heard in 173 episodes. That is way to many to list each and every appearance. Besides, it would just be a list stating :"A said "Dismissed" to B in the episode C", :"D said "Dismissed" to the crew of the E after they talked about F". etc :I think this is just one of the military terms used in Star Trek and we shouldn't start an article of all the appearances of it. I'm a doctor, not a... I can understand, because it has a special meaning for Star Trek and is different in every appearance, He's dead, Jim I could also understand, because it has also become a catchphrase. Dismissed? No, so I vote Delete. --Jörg 10:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC) *:delete -- like someone said, we don't really need an engage and make it so article either. if there is someone who wants to create an article about Starfleet forms of respectful address and other military parlance, it should be an article that is a survey of all such phrases -- not giving every little term its own article with a piddling dictionary definition.. -- Captain M.K.B. 11:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC) *'Keep' it! If it appears in 173 episodes, I'd say it's an intergral part of the series, and should be kept.--CaptainCaca 00:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC) *'Delete', per Captain Mike and Jörg. - AJ Halliwell 05:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC) *'Comment': The article has since been moved and rewritten as 'military parlance". Based on the votes above, it is scheduled to be deleted tomorrow, so do we still wanna delete this or not? --From Andoria with Love 20:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC) *'Keep': Since it's now in a context where it is more than just a catchphrase, I vote to keep. Of course, the article needs a lot of work now, so engage! - Intricated talk page 21:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC) * Comment: Perhaps we do the same with bow, stern, port, starboard, walk the plank, etc, and merge them to nautical terms? (I'm not including ventral and dorsal, because those are more terms in anatomy.) --Alan del Beccio 00:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC) *'Keep' military parlance, with dismissed as a redirect. I see no problem with an article talking about all of these words, just an article that is a dictionary definition for a single word. I also support Alan's idea with nautical terms. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC) * Keep: While MA clearly cannot (and in my opinion, should not) cover all the examples of usage, this term has some truly notable uses in canon. I would argue for inclusion given that the term, frequent as it is, often accompanied some memorable moments with bearing on later events (Picard chastising Wesley Crusher over truthfulness, Janeway declining Neelix's request to leave the ship temporarily, etcetera). 23:53, October 20, 2016 (UTC) Janeway quotation Very insignificant point of contention, but Janeway's famous line of, "That's a Star Fleet expression for, 'Get out'" is indicated in this article with an exclamation point. While Mulgrew's acting obviously colored delivery of lines, it would seem that Janeway was quite calm and unruffled when making this statement to Neelix. I would think a period would be a better representation of how the statement was made. Can anyone verify this against a production script? Again, this is a minor point, but as one of my favorite lines (with the sound clip of the line making a wonderful shutdown sound for computers), I would be curious to hear input from other MA users. 23:53, October 20, 2016 (UTC) Talk:Sir With military parlance, if we decide to keep at all. --Alan del Beccio 21:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC) :I would support deleting this article.(Though I won't suggest it until this discussion takes it course) It is just a polite form of address- should their be an article about Hello and Goodbye? We are not a dictionary. If this is kept, however, it should be merged as suggested above.--31dot 21:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC) It would seem that "Sir" is already referenced here. --Alan del Beccio 21:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC) ::I almost wonder if the reference should be removed from there and added to military parlance. Either way, it looks like this article is not needed.--31dot 12:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Talk:Detached duty I think this should be part of military parlance, just like duty is. Kennelly 12:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC) :Agreed– Cleanse 23:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC) ::Done. --From Andoria with Love 09:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Talk:Front line As said in the first sentence it was a common military term, so merge with Military parlance where we have more terms like this one. – Tom 11:31, September 19, 2009 (UTC) :I agree, merge.--31dot 12:29, September 19, 2009 (UTC) Talk: Duty The quote "The first duty of every starfleet officer is to the truth." was also spoken by Capt. Janeway to Neelix in . Maybe we could cite this somehow? Is it necessary? ThetaOrion 21:14, July 9, 2010 (UTC) Now hear this Does "now hear this" really need an entry on this page? I don't think it's a formal term any more than "attention please" is.--31dot 23:19, February 9, 2012 (UTC) :It seems to meet the article's criteria of a "unique form of speech" used by "servicepeople in the common agency or service organization."–Cleanse ( talk | ) 07:34, February 10, 2012 (UTC) On the bridge How about a section on the usage of "Captain on the bridge" or "Admiral on the bridge." That's definitely a formal use that's sometimes seen throughout the show. 03:09, July 22, 2014 (UTC) Talk: Confined to quarters This being a military term (and really just a milder form of jail), I propose merging this with military parlance, where we already have other terms like this. 31dot (talk) 00:16, May 6, 2014 (UTC) :Hmm. As the original creator of the article, I actually find myself rather neutral about it. It certainly does seem to meet the definition for military parlance. On the other hand, it definitely seems to be a distinct type of punishment and the argument could be made that it is deserving of its own article. I suppose I don't really mind either way as long as no information is lost. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:51, May 6, 2014 (UTC) ::"Confined to quarters" to me doesn't sound like a very encyclopaedic heading for an article. Furthermore, it does (in my opinion) fall under the category of military parlance and I would support a merge into that article. --| TrekFan Open a channel 05:01, May 7, 2014 (UTC) :Merged. Tom (talk) 19:05, March 7, 2015 (UTC) Bogey Would usage of the term "bogey" go here? (from ). --LauraCC (talk) 16:19, May 28, 2016 (UTC) From Talk "All stop" Merge with "military parlance" I believe info on the term "all stop" should be on the page Military parlance. This is in line with the fact that terms like "all stop" are not usually given a page of their own. -- Defiant (talk) 00:13, February 18, 2016 (UTC) :Maybe Nautical terms would be the more natural target. In any case I do agree that this should not have a page of its own. -- Capricorn (talk) 00:31, February 18, 2016 (UTC) ::I agree. I'm sorry, I'm new at this. Thank you for fixing this for me. There was an empty link around "all stop" and it led to a blank page so I thought I would give it a definition. -- Kccole01 (talk) 00:57, February 21, 2016 (UTC) :::For what it's worth, I also agree this should not have its own page. --| TrekFan Open a channel 01:03, February 21, 2016 (UTC) ::::Support a merge. Though instead of listing every time the order was given, I would suggest listing reasons why the order was given. Stop to scan something, to park, answer a hail, etc..\ -- LauraCC (talk) 18:46, February 23, 2016 (UTC) :::::Support. Kennelly (talk) 17:53, March 14, 2016 (UTC) ::::::Merged. Tom (talk) 21:25, June 6, 2016 (UTC) From Talk:Mess call I think this should fall under military parlance. Kennelly (talk) 14:26, February 23, 2016 (UTC) :Probably again better at nautical terms. (like "All stop" was) -- LauraCC (talk) 18:48, February 23, 2016 (UTC) :Support a merge, though, with something else. Anybody else know whether this is just navy or military too? -- LauraCC (talk) 18:29, March 1, 2016 (UTC) As a bugle call I guess it was used in both the army and the navy, getting a meal isn't navy-specific after all. Kennelly (talk) 22:41, April 4, 2016 (UTC) :Yeah, I meant the specific terminology for it being particular to a military setting. -- LauraCC (talk) 16:07, April 5, 2016 (UTC) ::Merged. Tom (talk) 09:59, December 21, 2016 (UTC)